SR 09-13-2022 7A
City Council
Housing Authority
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 11
To: Housing Authority, Mayor and City Council
From: Andy Agle, Director, Community Services Department, Housing and Human
Services
Subject: Section 8 Resident Advisory Board Approaches
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Housing Authority Board review and comment on the current
and alternative approaches to achieving Resident Advisory Board input on the Santa
Monica Housing Authority Plans, and direct the City Manager to return to City Council
following the November 2022 election with actions necessary to implement direction
received from City Council or further discussion regarding the alternatives presented, as
warranted.
Summary
Each year, the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) must submit an Annual Plan
and any updates to the Administrative Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) 75 days before the beginning of July-June fiscal year.
Every five years, the SMHA must also submit to HUD a 5-Year Plan within the same
deadline. Together, the 5-year Plan, Annual Plan, and Administrative Plan represent
the SMHA Plan (collectively referred to as the Plans). Prior to submission of the Plans,
federal regulations require that the SMHA’s Resident Advisory Board (RAB) have an
opportunity to provide input on the proposed Plans.
Santa Monica’s RAB consists of all 1,300+ voucher holders whose Housing Choice
Vouchers are administered by the SMHA. The current process involves notifying all
members of the RAB and inviting direct input on proposed Plans via email/mail/phone.
RAB members also have an opportunity to comment annually during a Housing
Commission and Housing Authority Board meeting when the SMHA Plans are
7.A
Packet Pg. 367
2 of 11
agendized for review and approval. In April 2022, the Housing Authority Board asked
staff to present alternative approaches to the RAB input process for consideration. The
following report provides background information, key regulations, current compliant
practice, and three alternatives, and seeks direction on any desired revisions to the
RAB process.
Background
At its April 12, 2022, meeting, the Housing Authority Board directed staff to return with a
discussion of options on alternative ways to facilitate RAB input on the Santa Monica
Housing Authority Plans. The following report is provided in response to the Housing
Authority Board’s direction.
Purpose of Resident Involvement In Public Housing
“The role of a resident council is to improve the quality of life and resident satisfaction
and participate in self-help initiatives to enable residents to create a positive living
environment for families living in public housing.” (See Title 24 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 964 for more information on tenant participation in public housing.)
Given the substantial role a Public Housing Authority (PHA) may play in the life of its
public housing residents, federal regulations allow tenants residing in public housing to
create resident councils. Many PHAs own and operate public housing and therefore
serve as the property owner to the tenants who reside in such housing, as well as the
subsidy provider that ensures each tenant’s portion of the rent is affordable. However,
other PHAs, such as the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA), do not own or
operate public housing and only administer rental-housing voucher programs, such as
the Housing Choice Voucher program (commonly known as Section 8), which allow
tenants to obtain affordable housing in the broader private housing market. Tenants
with vouchers reside in hundreds of privately owned properties located throughout cities
and PHAs do not have a role in how such properties are managed and operated, except
for ensuring that federal Housing Quality Standards are met through periodic
inspections.
Different Ways to Structure Resident Involvement
7.A
Packet Pg. 368
3 of 11
PHAs that own and operate public housing may have a resident (tenant) council for
each specific public housing property or may have a jurisdiction-wide resident council to
represent tenants of several public housing properties within a PHA’s jurisdiction. Since
the SMHA does not own or operate public housing, it is referred to as ‘voucher-only’
PHA, and regulations regarding resident councils are not applicable to the SMHA.
While voucher-only PHAs do not have resident councils, they must have a Resident
Advisory Board to allow an opportunity for input into the PHA plan. (See 24 CFR 903 for
more information on PHA Plans.)
Key federal regulations regarding the role of a RAB are as follows (24 CFR 903.13):
• “The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist
and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA plan, and any
significant amendment or modification to the PHA plan.”
• “The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources to assure the effective functioning of
Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable resources for the Resident Advisory Boards
must provide reasonable means for them to become informed on programs covered
by the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families
and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered
programs on the internet, taking into account the size and resources of the PHA.”
• “Where the PHA has a tenant-based assistance program of significant size (where
tenant-based assistance is 20% or more of assisted households), the PHA shall
assure that the Resident Advisory Board (or Boards) has reasonable representation
of families receiving tenant-based assistance and that a reasonable process is
undertaken to choose this representation.”
• “The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or
Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or
modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in §903.21 of this title.”
The purpose of the RAB is to provide input to SMHA staff regarding the PHA Plan for
consideration prior to staff presenting recommendations to the Housing Authority Board,
7.A
Packet Pg. 369
4 of 11
the governing body of the Housing Authority. Typically, the SMHA receives input from
only a few voucher program participants, if any, although it is common to receives input
from the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, based on their experiences in
representing voucher-program participants.
Public Housing Authority Plan
The PHA Plan is a comprehensive guide to PHAs goals and objectives, as well as
operational policies implementing the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. There
are two initial components to the PHA Plan - the 5-Year Plan and the Annual Plan. The
5-Year Plan must be approved once every fifth fiscal year, and the Annual Plan, every
year, 75 days before the start of the fiscal year.
Since the SMHA is a ‘voucher-only PHA’ and uses a three-page streamlined Annual
Plan form per federal requirements, the complete policies and procedures for
administering the HCV program are detailed within 17 chapters of the SMHAs
Administrative Plan, the third component of the PHA Plan. The HCV program is a
highly regulated federal program (see Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part
982) involving these aspects:
1) waitlist administration
2) initial program eligibility
3) annual recertification
4) Housing Quality Standards and periodic inspections
5) document verification hierarchy
6) annual income calculations
7) subsidy limits
8) appeals
9) terminations
10) monthly and annual reporting
7.A
Packet Pg. 370
5 of 11
Therefore, PHAs have limited discretion in forming local policies and procedures.
Subsequently, the SMHA’s Administrative Plan includes a combination of federally
established regulations and a few local, discretionary approaches to administering the
HCV program where allowed. For example, PHAs must adhere to the federal
regulations regarding admittance to the program, ongoing eligibility, periodic
inspections, and maximum subsidy limits, but can exercise local discretion in prioritizing
certain applicant groups, allocating vouchers to specific properties (known as project-
based vouchers), and selecting models to comply with maximum subsidy amounts.
Evolution of SM RAB Approaches
Given that the SMHA does not own or operate any publicly owned housing, there are no
resident (tenant) councils that comply with the tenant-participation regulations under the
tenant-based assistance program. Therefore, voucher-only PHAs have discretion in the
RAB appointment process.
Federal regulations and HUD guidance provide local PHAs broad discretion in the
formation of the RAB, as follows: “Section 8-only PHAs have discretion in the RAB
appointment process. Participation in a RAB is limited to residents that are assisted
under federally assisted public housing and the Section 8 tenant-based program.” Also:
“PHAs have discretion in determining the method of appointment of RABs, as long as a
PHA ensures that its RAB or RABs reflect and represent all the residents assisted by
the PHA.”
Prior to 2020, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
recognized the Housing Commission as representing the function of a RAB due to its
inclusion of two voucher program participants, monthly meetings, annual review and
input to the PHA plan, and role as an advisory body to the City Council, which
periodically convenes as the governing body of the SMHA, known as the Housing
Authority Board.
In early 2020, the SMHA staff selected a seven-member RAB, consistent with HUD
written guidance that personal appeals are a strategy that may be more likely to obtain
commitments from program participants to serve on the RAB.
7.A
Packet Pg. 371
6 of 11
In March 2021, the SMHA expanded the RAB to include all 1,300+ Section 8 program
participants (i.e., HCV participants). (Note that the SMHA administers other voucher
programs, and those participants are included in all noticing of opportunities to comment
on the SMHA plans but are not considered part of the RAB.) The decision to expand
the RAB was made after discussion with the local HUD field office about RAB models
used by other housing authorities. Another consideration was concern from some
community members that a RAB selected by staff was not transparent. Among two
general models, one model limits the RAB to a closed group of HCV participant
representatives and the other model includes all HCV participants. SMHA currently uses
the more inclusive option, which allows for participation by all HCV participants.
Discussion
Current RAB approach and Input Opportunities
The RAB currently includes all 1,300+ participants in the HCV program and is consulted
annually regarding the SMHA plan and any time significant revisions to the plan are
proposed. SMHA’s Plan is available online year-round on the City’s website, consisting
of the 5-year Plan, the Annual Plan, and the Administrative Plan. In a typical year, the
proposed SMHA Annual Plan (a streamlined, 3-page federal form) and Administrative
Plan (containing federally established policies and some local discretionary policies) are
posted for a 45-day public review period. As mentioned earlier in this report, given the
highly regulated nature of the HCV program, opportunities for the local SMHA to create
discretionary policies are limited in scope.
All SMHA program participants, including the RAB (which consists only of HCV
participants), are directly notified annually via email and mail and are encouraged to
provide input regarding each year’s Annual Plan and Administrative Plan. Typically,
there may be no proposed changes to the Annual Plan and minor proposed changes to
the Administrative Plan to enhance voucher household opportunities and clarify policies.
Some years there may be no proposed changes to the Annual and Administrative
Plans, but HUD still requires the public review and Housing Authority Board approval
process to occur. The notification to program participants describes the process for
submitting feedback, allowing for various formats including email, paper mail, and/or
7.A
Packet Pg. 372
7 of 11
telephone, as well as public meetings of the Housing Commission and City Council
(meeting as the Housing Authority Board).
The current model of the RAB and the methods of input reflect a simple feedback loop
between the RAB and SMHA staff in which attendance at (usually evening) meetings is
not required. Additional opportunities for input at public meetings are also provided.
The following summarized the current approach:
1. Email/mail/phone feedback method respects the privacy of participants not
comfortable exposing their program participation in a public setting, or who may
have obligations which conflict with attending meetings.
2. Housing Commission meetings are also held to receive public input on the SMHA
plans and RAB members (and all voucher program participants) are notified of the
opportunity to attend the Housing Commission meeting and provide input.
3. Housing Authority Board (HAB) meetings where the proposed SMHA plans are
considered and RAB members, as well as the broader public, may provide input.
It should be noted that the SMHA is required by federal regulations to recognize and
address recommendations made by RAB members, whether such recommendations
come from an individual or a group.
The following table summarizes requirements regarding the RAB and describes how
compliance is currently being achieved by the SMHA:
RAB Requirement Current Compliant Approach
PHAs have discretion in determining the
method of appointment of RABs, as long as a
PHA ensures that its RAB or RABs reflect
and represent all the residents assisted by
the PHA. Participation in a RAB is limited to
residents that are assisted under federally
assisted public housing and the Section 8
tenant-based program.
All SMHA participants in the Section 8
(officially known as the Housing Choice
Voucher program) have been appointed as
RAB members, allowing for the broadest
possible inclusion of voucher residents in the
RAB.
7.A
Packet Pg. 373
8 of 11
RAB Requirement Current Compliant Approach
The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or
Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist and
make recommendations regarding the
development of the PHA plan, and any
significant amendment or modification to the
PHA plan.
All SMHA RAB members are provided both
discreet (via email/mail/phone) and public
opportunities (Housing Commission and
Housing Authority Board) to provide input and
make recommendations regarding the PHA
plan and proposed modifications.
The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources
to assure the effective functioning of
Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable
resources for the Resident Advisory Boards
must provide reasonable means for them to
become informed on programs covered by
the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and
by telephone with assisted families and hold
meetings with those families, and to access
information regarding covered programs on
the internet, taking into account the size and
resources of the PHA.
SMHA Plans (5-Year Plan, Annual Plan,
and Administrative Plan) are available
online year-round.
City website has additional information
about SMHA programs.
RAB and assisted families are one in the
same, and not distinct groups.
RAB consists of all HCV assisted families
and are invited to an annual meeting
hosted by the Housing Commission as a
forum for providing input, which must be
considered by SMHA staff and
communicated to the Housing Authority
Board (HAB) prior to the HABs review and
approval of the proposed SMHA plans.
HUD has approved the current SMHA
approach to the RAB as in compliance
because RAB members are provided
opportunities for input on the SMHA plans.
The PHA must consider the
recommendations of the Resident Advisory
Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual
Plan, and any significant amendment or
modification to the Annual Plan, as provided
in §903.21 of this title.
When presenting the final, proposed SMHA
plans to the Housing Authority Board and to
HUD for consideration and approval, the
SMHA includes both summary and verbatim
feedback and recommendations from the
RAB.
Alternative to Current RAB Input Process
While the current RAB approach and process has been approved by HUD, some
community members have requested that the City take additional steps to facilitate a
more robust RAB process. Examples of suggestions include an opportunity for the RAB
membership to meet as a group, discuss issues, and make recommendations to the
SMHA. Although the role of the RAB is to provide input on the PHA Plans, a process
which occurs annually, some community members have also suggested that multiple
7.A
Packet Pg. 374
9 of 11
RAB meetings per year, such as quarterly, could improve the exchange of information
among voucher program participants as well as comprehension about SMHA policies.
The three options described below and further detailed in Attachment A represent
possible alternatives for Council consideration and direction regarding approaches to
conducting RAB meetings and formation, in the order of least to most resource-
intensive.
Existing staffing resources are available to facilitate a virtual opt-in communication
channel (Option 1) or a virtual annual RAB meeting in place of the RAB’s annual
opportunity to provide feedback at a Housing Commission meeting (Option 2). Should
Council desire Option 3 or a different approach not mentioned in this report, additional
resources or direction to divert existing resources from current affordable housing
priorities would be needed.
Option 1 - Facilitate Opportunities for RAB Members to Meet Virtually and
Independently of SMHA
A virtual communication channel to facilitate group communication could be created as
an informational forum for RAB members, who voluntarily opt-in, to converse in general
about voucher program issues. This option would create an email group (e.g.,
LISTSERV) to provide opportunities for participants to schedule in-person or virtual
meet-up groups. The communication channel could serve as a springboard to other
types of connections. Once formed, participating RAB members would be responsible
for the manner and frequency in which to communicate and/or convene (virtually, in-
person, hybrid) without SMHA involvement.
Option 2 - SMHA Organizes and Supports Virtual Annual RAB Workshop
Staff would organize and conduct an annual RAB workshop, in-lieu of the traditional
annual Housing Commission forum for feedback on the SMHA Plans. Option 1 could
also be implemented to complement this Option 2. The next SMHA Annual Plan cycle
begins in early 2023, so with Council direction to proceed with Option 2, the next annual
RAB workshop could occur in February 2023.
7.A
Packet Pg. 375
10 of 11
Option 3 - Council-Appointed RAB Which Meets Quarterly
Council would appoint a subset of HCV participants to a RAB to represent all 1,300+
HCV participants and staff would then organize and support quarterly RAB meetings.
(A few community members have suggested quarterly meetings.) Before this option
could be implemented, staff would return to Council at mid-year to recommend specifics
regarding Council appointment of the RAB, RAB operations, and staff resources
necessary for implementation. However, as the next SMHA Annual Plan cycle begins in
early 2023, staff would continue the existing approach to RAB input involving direct
communication between SMHA staff and the 1,300+ RAB members during February.
Additionally, with Council direction, staff would implement the Option 1 approach of
creating a group-level communication forum for interested parties to opt-in, to allow
participants to convene and collaborate prior to the 2023 SMHA Annual Plan input
process.
See also Attachment A for further details regarding resources, implementation,
opportunities, and considerations associated with each of the three options.
Other Considerations
In considering alternative methods to the existing formation and input opportunities of
the RAB, Council may wish to wait for the outcome of the November 2022 election, as
one of the ballot initiatives, if adopted, would generate funding for affordable housing
programs and require a resident oversight committee. Given the existing RAB and the
Housing Commission, and the possibility of a new resident oversight committee, there
may be a convergence of affordable housing issues and policy that fall under the
various bodies. An opportunity would then exist to clearly identify the roles and scope of
the various bodies, the existing and necessary human and capital resources to
adequately function, and the corresponding required budget actions.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action. Options 1 and 2 can be implemented with currently budgeted
resources. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future
7.A
Packet Pg. 376
11 of 11
associated with resources necessary to implement Option 3 or other Council-directed
processes for RAB input.
Prepared By: Jim Kemper, Housing Program Manager
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process
B. Written Comments
7.A
Packet Pg. 377
Attachment A
Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process
1
Option 1
Facilitate Opportunities for RAB
Members to Meet Virtually and
Independently of SMHA
Option 2
SMHA Organizes and Supports
Annual Virtual RAB Workshop
Option 3
Council Appoints RAB and Meets
Quarterly
Staff Resources
& Role
Staff involvement, with existing
resources, to:
• Create group-level
communication channel
accounts
• Initial notification of RAB
members of choice to opt-in
Staff would not create or maintain
the email list, communicate to the
opt-in group about meetings, or
attend meetings
Staff involvement, with existing
resources, to:
• Organize, implement, attend,
and document an ANNUAL
virtual RAB workshop
This approach would replace the
annual Housing Commission
meeting dedicated for the same
purpose
Staff involvement, with the
ADDITION of organizational and
supportive resources to:
• Organize, implement, attend,
and document QUARTERLY
meeting(s)
Staff would return to Council at
mid-year to recommend specifics
regarding Council appointing the
RAB, operations, and staff
resources necessary to implement
this option
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process [Revision 1] (5194
Attachment A
Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process
2
Option 1
Facilitate Opportunities for RAB
Members to Meet Virtually and
Independently of SMHA
Option 2
SMHA Organizes and Supports
Annual Virtual RAB Workshop
Option 3
Council Appoints RAB and Meets
Quarterly
Formation &
Communication
Staff would initially contact all
1,300+ RAB members to inform
them of opportunity to opt-in to a
group-level email communication
channel
Any notifications and meetings
coordination thereafter would be
the responsibility of the
participants opting in to this group
Staff would contact all 1,300+ RAB
members to inform them of the
annual workshop opportunity
Allow an opportunity for input via
email/mail/phone
Council would appoint a subset of
HCV participants to the RAB to
represent all 1,300+ HCV
participants
Staff would organize and support
quarterly RAB meetings
Membership
All HCV (Section 8) persons with
Santa Monica vouchers would be
eligible to participate
All HCV (Section 8) persons with
Santa Monica vouchers would be
eligible to participate
All HCV (Section 8) persons with
Santa Monica vouchers could be
considered for appointment to the
RAB
Its composition is required to be
representative of the broader HCV
population
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process [Revision 1] (5194
Attachment A
Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process
3
Option 1
Facilitate Opportunities for RAB
Members to Meet Virtually and
Independently of SMHA
Option 2
SMHA Organizes and Supports
Annual Virtual RAB Workshop
Option 3
Council Appoints RAB and Meets
Quarterly
Meetings
Participants decide
• Meeting frequency
• How to conduct discussions
• Ready themselves for future
input on SMHA Plans
One annual workshop where staff
would receive input on SMHA
Plans
Quarterly meetings
Housing
Commission Role
N/A
Annual RAB workshop would
replace the annual Housing
Commission meeting scheduled
for input on the SMHA Plans
RAB meeting(s) would replace
Housing Commission meeting
scheduled for input on the SMHA
Plans
Opportunities
Provides a forum for HCV holders
to discuss issues with other
voucher holders and refine
thinking for input to the SMHA
regarding Plans
Provides an opportunity for HCV
holders to provide input in a forum
where other voucher holders may
attend and provide related input on
SMHA Plans
Staff would continue to provide an
opportunity for input via
email/mail/phone
Provides an opportunity for RAB to
convene multiple times during the
year in a forum where other HCV
holders may attend and discuss
HCV program issues
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process [Revision 1] (5194
Attachment A
Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process
4
Option 1
Facilitate Opportunities for RAB
Members to Meet Virtually and
Independently of SMHA
Option 2
SMHA Organizes and Supports
Annual Virtual RAB Workshop
Option 3
Council Appoints RAB and Meets
Quarterly
Considerations
Responsibility of successfully
implementing this option would
fall on the RAB members who
opt-in
Would not relieve SMHA of:
• responsibility to notify all RAB
members annually regarding
the SMHA Plans process
• allow an opportunity for input
• address input received from
individual RAB members
Possible confusion among RAB
members about input
opportunities regarding the official
RAB – which is all 1,300+ HCV
households – and a cohort of
RAB members who choose to
opt-in and participate in group-
level communications
May not satisfy request from some
community members for multiple
RAB meetings during the year
As meeting attendance may not
work for many voucher holders,
staff recommends that the
quarterly RAB meetings would
need to be paired with
opportunities for all voucher
holders to provide input via email,
mail, or phone
A Council-appointed RAB would
be subject to the Brown Act
Size of the RAB, criteria and
process for selection, and
achieving a RAB representative of
HCV participants, would be key
considerations in creating a new
RAB.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process [Revision 1] (5194
Santa Monica Housing Commission
RAB Recommendations
Adopted 1 September 2022 by unanimous vote of all Commissioners present
After considerable individual research, including RAB configurations, bylaws, and practices in
other jurisdictions; trauma-informed community engagement; and consultation with attorneys
from nonprofit Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) and National Housing
Law Project (NHLP); as well as extensive input by Santa Monica Housing Authority program
participants and other local residents; review of relevant Housing Authority staff report and
recommendations; and extensive public discussion; the Santa Monica Housing Commission
unanimously recommends the following to best support and empower Housing Authority
program participants to exercise their federal right to self-representation:
1. The Housing Authority Board agrees to establish a Client Advisory Board (CAB) that
represents all Housing Authority program participants, including Continuum of Care,
HOME, Emergency, project-based HCV, and other voucher holders, in addition to
tenant-based HCV holders, in compliance with 24 CFR § 903.13(a), which states "a
Resident Advisory Board refers to a board or boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and
represent the residents assisted by the PHA."
2. The CAB be composed of 7-15 Housing Authority clients, with the inclusion of at least
one member from each major federally funded Housing Authority program
3. Program participants collectively decide for themselves how CAB members are chosen,
CAB meeting frequency, content of CAB bylaws, and who will represent the CAB on the
Housing Authority Board (including at least one tenant-based voucher holder, as
required by federal regulation)
4. SMHA Board directs staff to immediately schedule an initial hybrid CAB meeting and
mail notice of this meeting to all 1600+ Housing Authority program participant
households. Notices should be written in English and Spanish, with options to request
translation in additional languages, to ensure recipients’ understanding. Notices should
be sent by physical mail, and additionally by email to clients who have also provided an
email address
5. All CAB meetings be public and agendized and staff notify all SMHA program
participants by both mail and email in sufficient advance
6. CAB members hold special or subcommittee meetings as needed In addition to regular
meetings
7. The drafting and adoption of a Memorandum of Understanding between the CAB and
SMHA Board, to be incorporated into the Housing Authority Board bylaws by reference
and the Administrative Plan in its entirety
8. CAB bylaws be included in the Housing Authority Administrative Plan
Item 7.A 09/13/22
1 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
9. SMHA use federal funds allocated for administrative costs to pay for the CAB
communications detailed below*, basic administrative costs, and possible relevant
educational and training opportunities
10.The CAB, once established, proposes an annual budget for approval by the Housing
Authority Board. An initial budget may be estimated before the first CAB meeting based
on the cost of the Housing Commission recommendations
11.Each CAB member receives a $50 stipend for each CAB meeting attended
12.Staff advise all clients and the CAB about all regular timelines for the Housing Authority
planning process to ensure maximum participation
13.In future, CAB members periodically invite Housing Authority staff to provide
educational presentations on the Annual, Administrative, and 5-Year Plans as needed
14.The Housing Commission has created an ad hoc CAB Subcommittee to provide input
and guidance to Housing Authority clients as needed while they form the CAB. We also
recommend extending invitations to Denise McGranahan of LAFLA, Darryn Mumphery
of the Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC), Bridgett Simmons of the
National Housing Law Project (NHLP), and other independent and knowledgeable
people or groups to attend the first CAB meeting and act as resources to clients while
they make initial CAB decisions
*Detailed recommendations for independent and fully accessible communications:
A. Dedicated phone number with TDD & TTY accessibility and outgoing messaging
that will be recorded and maintained by the CAB
B. Physical city mailbox for written correspondence
C. CAB materials in all new client onboarding, including new and ported vouchers
D. Continuing city email addresses for Housing Authority Board members
E. All mailings to SMHA clients translated in their preferred languages
F. Translation support at CAB meetings as needed
G. Occasional translator support for outgoing phone messages
H. Physical and digital mailings to all SMHA participants to notify them of CAB
meetings in sufficient advance
I. Surveys sent 2x/year to all SMHA clients for the first two years and annually
thereafter
J. Occasional staff presentations at CAB meetings, by invitation, to inform CAB
about the Annual, Administrative, and 5 Year Plans
Item 7.A 09/13/22
2 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
Notes on CAB costs and funding
The Housing Commission's recommendations involve three primary expense categories:
stipends, communications, and existing City infrastructure.
● Stipends would cost $350-750 per meeting for 7-15 CAB members
● Total listed communications, excluding initial website creation and existing city
infrastructure, would cost approximately $590-775 per year
● Changing current staff mass mailing practices could dramatically reduce cost
Federal funds are available to pay for all CAB related expenses.
Note on staff support
By design, these Housing Commission recommendations rely on minimal staff support.
Submitted by Michelle Gray, Santa Monica Housing Commission Chair, on 13 September 2022
via written public comment
Item 7.A 09/13/22
3 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ryan Bell <ryan@tenantstogether.org>
Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 10:09 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre;
Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; David White
Subject:Input re Resident Advisory Board (RAB)
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Housing Authority Board and SMHA Executive Director White,
This letter is being submitted in support of the Santa Monica Housing Commission’s recommendations for the
formation of the Santa Monica Client Advisory Board (CAB).
Tenants Together is a statewide coalition of local tenant organizations dedicated to defending and
advancing the rights of California tenants to safe, decent, and affordable housing. As California’s only
statewide renters’ rights organization, Tenants Together works to improve the lives of California’s
tenants by supporting local groups like those in Santa Monica. Tenants Together seeks to support
and strengthen the statewide movement for renters’ rights.
As such, Tenants Together recognizes the importance of meaningful Housing Authority client representation
and recommend that such representation be as independent and self-directed as possible.
Our organization urges the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board to adopt the CAB recommendations that will
be presented by the Santa Monica Housing Commission on September 13, 2022.
Sincerely,
Ryan Bell
________________________________
Ryan Bell - he/him
Southern California Regional Coordinator
Tenants Together
323.313.4035
www.tenantstogether.org
Item 7.A 09/13/22
4 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Deborah Lynch <lyncham@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:17 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Theresa Marasco; Michelle Gray
Subject:9/13/2022 Council Meeting Request for Presentation/Addressing the members
EXTERNAL
Please accept this request for time to address the meeting attendees for the Housing Commissions recommendations
for a separate CAB (RAB) , and to add a few comments which I think are necessary.
Please know that I am also hoping to be a member of the first CAB, and hope to be an active and productive constituent
of positive, incremental change for all tenants whom are voucher holders within the City of Santa Monica.
Three Primary Issues I wish to address:
1) To create a CAB to be functional within 1 months’ time to avoid further delays in addressing specific tenant
requirements, questions regarding their vouchers, and enhanced representation within annual administrative
and the 5 year planning process with the S.M. Housing Authority Program;
2) The need to address completely and in it’s entirety the difference of the CoC voucher (Continuum of Care) and
standard voucher and what additional benefits this voucher provides as well as how to access those benefits as
needed and without undue delay;
3) The desire and ultimate need to enact (or re‐enact) the provision for home ownership thru the S.M. voucher
program – this is a humongous asset NOT be wasting and it is my understanding that the funds are available thru
the Federal government for the housing program and indeed, already been distributed to those Cities….. why
are we not using those funds? Cost is not a factor!
Thanking you in advance for considering my request for addressing the audience and the Board in the very important
matter.
Sincerely,
Deborah Lynch
(310) 869‐6472
Sent from Mail for Windows
Item 7.A 09/13/22
5 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Michael Louis <dignitycompassionnetwork@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:45 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre;
Phil Brock
Subject:Agenda Item 7.A: Section 8 Resident Advisory Board Approaches - City Council Meeting: September
13, 2022
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Councilmembers, Santa Monica Housing Authority Board
As board members, you have critically important choices to make tonight. Simply put, this item asks that you
distinguish (and choose) between two concepts: 1. the human right of self-determination and self-
representation (for the poor, disabled, elderly, and working class), and 2. the human need to control, to further
marginalize and disenfranchise these groups.
We all know which choice we say we prefer, in public. But how do we act when it comes time to walk the
walk?
In my opinion, individuals who qualify (or will qualify) for federally subsidized housing and those clients who
currently reside in such housing, do not seek or need sympathy from City Staff or Housing Authority Board for
their hardship or life situation. They need action. They do not seek or need empathy or performative platitudes
offered with the best of intentions from a distance — from the City staff offices or from the dais during Housing
Authority Board/City Council Meetings. They need compassionate action. They need public officials and
government employees to meet them where they are, as unique individuals. In need of self-representation. Not
where Santa Monica City officials and many other governments across this land have historically left these
groups. Without a voice. Without a unified voice and self-representation.
The human right to self-determination and self-representation along with the human right to independence and
autonomy form the foundation of what we call a participatory democracy. Those who benefit from such a
system have their agency recognized and nurtured. Their health, well-being, and life situation can stabilize or
improve because they are valued as human beings. They are treated with dignity and respect.
As stated in the staff report for this item, the Housing Authority Board directed City staff to return with a
discussion of options on alternative ways to facilitate Resident Advisory Board (RAB) input on the Santa
Monica Housing Authority Plans. City staff’s report created in response to this Housing Authority Board’s
direction came up with three options.
First, the report states: “Purpose of Resident Involvement In Public Housing ‘The role of a resident council is to
improve the quality of life and resident satisfaction and participate in self-help initiatives to enable residents to
create a positive living environment for families living in public housing.” (See Title 24 Code of Federal
Regulations)”. This purpose of resident involvement would no doubt apply to all federal housing program
participant representative bodies. Including the RAB.
Staff Option 1 - Facilitate Opportunities for RAB Members to Meet Virtually and Independently of SMHA
Staff Option 2 - SMHA Organizes and Supports Virtual Annual RAB Workshop
Staff Option 3 - Council-Appointed RAB Which Meets Quarterly
Item 7.A 09/13/22
6 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
2
Options 2 and 3 involve unnecessary and intrusive City government engagement and entanglement. These
options should be immediately taken off the table, and are frankly absurd given City staff’s historical animosity,
resistance, and outright intransigence to allowing the formation of a fully functioning, independent and
autonomous RAB. Meaning not a RAB that exists only on paper.
Choosing option 2 or 3 would be analogous in many respects to a situation where the first-ever Amazon Labor
Union (ALU), formed in 2021, would require the Amazon Executive Board and perhaps Jeff Bazos himself to
be involved in “Organizing and Supporting Virtual Annual Employee Workshop” (Option 2) and the Amazon
Executive Board and perhaps Jeff Bazos himself would be “Appointing Employee Union Representatives
Which Meets Quarterly” (Option 3). While the RAB is clearly far from a “labor union”, it is a consumer union of
sorts. Or it is intended to function like one in many respects.
Choosing Option 2 or 3 or anything else that resembles them, is essentially a form of union busting. This is
obvious to anyone in the public or in public office who examines these issues in good faith. I believe that
choosing Option 1 along with the following Housing Commission recommendations would be the best choice.
Below are my recommendations and discussion items, many of which are informed by and/or shared with
those of the Housing Commission. Most, if not all of them are supported by a large number of RAB members,
other Federal Housing Programs participants, and members of the public I have met informally with, as well as
those I have watched while attending Housing Commission meetings. This is especially the case for the most
recent meeting on 9/1/22, where the formation of a fully functioning independent RAB was a main topic. This
historic and unprecedented meeting was attended by approximately 60 individuals — many of them RAB
members. It was truely an inspiring evening.
1. The RAB: Optimal Participation, Independence, Inclusivity, Access, Representation
a. Everything must be done, all the stops pulled out to ensure that the greatest amount of
participation, access, and inclusivity will occur. Many US cities are trending in this direction.
HUD is encouraging and enabling this trend. The City of Santa Monica, which considers itself
rather progressive and regularly promotes and celebrates diversity, should follow suit. Better
put, it should lead other cities in the right direction.
b. Fundamental recommendations of the Housing Commission (among others found in this
public comment) are as follows:
i) that the RAB be as independent of City staff as humanly possible.
ii) that there will be absolutely minimal staff involvement, in other words by invitation only.
iii) support from the City will be limited to assistance with things such as access to translators,
mailings and other functional/logistical supports to be determined by the RAB.
iii) that staff will be welcome to show up to meetings a couple of times a year (by invitation) —
perhaps more often — to explain various salient matters related to the RAB.
c.
d.
2. Widening the Scope and Diversity of Federal Housing Program Participation
. The Housing Commission recommends that the RAB include all federal housing program
participants, within a larger more inclusive tent, not just limited to tenant-based Housing Choice
voucher holders.
a. Federal housing program participants and RAB members have expressed resounding support
for widening the umbrella.
b. It is crucial that the Housing Authority Board direct staff to schedule a RAB meeting
immediately. It is recommended that invitations be sent out expeditiously so that interested
clients can all meet for the first time, as soon as possible.
3. City Staff has a long history of either incompetence or intentional neglect or both, when it
comes to facilitating the formation of a fully functional, independent RAB ( not just a RAB on
paper). City staff should not be allowed to usurp/replace/undermine the authority of the Housing
Commission in its crucial representation of stakeholders. The Housing Commission’s mandate
is to advise the Housing Authority.
Item 7.A 09/13/22
7 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
3
a. It is evident that even by the current recommendations of staff, the City staff remain far out of
touch with the clients’ actual needs.
b. Staff is responsible for years of problems and non-responsiveness to the needs of voucher
holders.
c. After decades of lack of self-representation for clients, it’s inappropriate for Staff to be the ones
making recommendations when their previous judgment has been so poor, and they have been
so inaccessible, disconnected, and out of touch.
d. The authoritative source of recommendations to the Housing Authority is the Housing
Commission. Not the staff. Santa Monica City staff has a whole history of bad decisions,
especially with regard to RAB formation. Unfortunately, they are currently defending those bad
decisions.
e. City staff has essentially no contact with clients. The Housing Commission, on the other hand,
historically (for years, very often monthly and especially recently), has been actively engaged
with clients. The Housing Commission has gone out of its way to solicit input directly and
with candor from the clients. And every recommendation of the Housing Commission is
informed by a genuine concern for what the clients actually need and want.
f. With staff options 2 and 3, staff is clearly attempting to circumvent the Housing Commission —
take them out of the review process. These last two options appear designed to simply get input
all in one place and at the same time so that the Housing Commission will no longer participate
in the Housing Authority planning process. This is extraordinarily problematic on so many levels.
g. Staff is trying to conflate these two bodies, their jurisdictions and purviews. These are two
distinct public bodies. Staff trying to cut the Housing Commission out of proceedings is just
another way to disenfranchise, exclude, and sideline more housing clients.
h. Merriam-webster defines disenfranchise as “broadly signifying depriving someone of any of a
number of legal rights, it is most often used today of withholding the right to vote, or of the
diminished social or political status of a marginalized group. [Also,] to deprive of some privilege
or immunity; especially to deprive of the right to vote; disenfranchising the poor and elderly. If
the Housing Commission is removed from the equation these groups are exactly who will
be disenfranchised, sidelined, and excluded.
i. Anyone who is genuinely working in good faith should welcome all the work the Housing
Commission has done and is set to do, regarding the RAB, and their good faith interactions with
federal housing program participants. But it is clear City staff are still trying to minimize the
participation of program participants (and the Housing Commission) in general, by saying
IF we get a couple of people who are clients, then the Housing Commission doesn’t have to
weigh in anymore. This is extremely problematic. Generally speaking, City staff employees are
not reliable narrators for this highly nuanced cause. They are not appropriate sources of
recommendations.
4. It is inappropriate at the very least and unlawful at most, that the Staff Report and
recommendations for this item include political speech concerning an upcoming election
regarding a ballot measure. This might be considered a form of electioneering. Although the law
allows for some exceptions (for purely informational purposes, for example), a public official
may not promote or try to influence the outcome of a ballot measure or candidate’s election, if
that dissemination of information is conducted in the capacity of or during the course of work
as a public official.
. Staff’s brief recommendation is essentially to postpone the forming of the RAB (or engagement
in the necessary preparatory steps) until after the November election.
a. Staff’s supporting reason: if the ballot initiative passes, staff could provide housing funds to
support RAB efforts. And this could affect how the RAB forms and operates. Simply, this is staff
repeating a political talking point. This is inappropriate in the context of a staff report and it is a
ridiculous foundation for recommendations that affect thousands of Santa Monicans who’ve
been waiting for 22 years to be able to exercise the right to self-representation.
b. The formation of the RAB has nothing to do with this election year or a ballot measure. This has
to do with the RAB only. For City Staff to try to mix it in with an election year, it gives the
appearance that staff has its own agenda. That staff has a plan separate and apart for what is
best for RAB members and the formation of a fully functioning independent RAB
Item 7.A 09/13/22
8 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
4
c. City staff or any public official who will not allow or promote RAB independent self-
representation and self-determination are hiding behind process arguments. This is similar in
some ways to when Republicans in Congress would not allow a Supreme court confirmation
hearing for Merrick Garland, just because it was to occur in the same election year. So, why
would City staff use a process argument? Perhaps it is because they have run out of stalling
tactics and other tricks in order to prevent the formation of a fully functioning, fully independent
RAB.
d. Staff unnecessarily gave a plug for the ballot measure and used it as a tool to delay any action
on the RAB. It is not only political speech, but it is also irrelevant because this involves people
participating in federal housing programs. This participation is regulated by something entirely
different. It has nothing to do with what is happening locally.
e. This inappropriate political speech demonstrates what we advocates have been saying for years
about City staff bias, especially with regard to the formation of the RAB. That staff has a strong
tendency to insert themselves into having their own agendas that are in conflict with sound
public policy and the spirit of participatory democracy. And again, this is also completely
irrelevant because the issue at hand concerns federal programs and federal money.
It is worth reaffirming what has been mentioned in numerous public comments submitted by advocates to this
Housing Authority Board, City Council, and past Housing Commissions — that this RAB is 20+ years overdue
and there has been vigorous advocacy for the past almost 3 years. The Housing Authority Board and City of
Santa Monica need to move on this. The time to act is now.
Thank you for considering my public input.
Michael Louis
Item 7.A 09/13/22
9 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:OZ <zurawska@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 12:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Lana Negrete
Subject:7-A (RAB) public comment
Attachments:PRRAC NHLP policy brief.pdf
EXTERNAL
This email, and the attachment, constitute my public input to item 7-A at the 9/13/22 meeting of the
SMHAB.
I urge the SMHAB to support the Housing Commission's well vetted recommendations regarding the
formation of an autonomous, robust Resident Advisory Board that includes representatives of all the
federally subsidized housing programs administered by the Santa Monica Housing Authority, with
minimal staff involvement or and with zero impact on the City's budget. A proposed name would be
"CAB," which stands for Client Advisory Board.
Here are the highlights of the recommendations:
a) RAB/CAB an entirely autonomous body, independent of staff, SMHAB, Housing Commission or
any other city committee.
b) CAB includes solely participants of federally funded housing programs, and has anarrow
jurisdiction that pertains to those federally funded programs, therefore cannot be combined with, or
conflated with any other housing related city board or committee.
c) CAB includes representatives from all major federally funded programs administered by SMHA, not
just tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher holders. Therefore the CAB would include Continuum of
Care representatives, HOME program participants and representatives of project-based Housing
Choice Voucher holders. It makes sense for the CAB to be inclusive of all the federally funded
programs administered by SMHA.
d) no city budget needed. Federal Housing Authority admin fees are supposed to be used for the
CAB, plus soon there will be designated HUD funding for the RABs (there's advocacy at the federal
level now via Congressman Andy Levin and PRRAC – Poverty and Race Research Advocacy
Council and the National Housing Law Project). See the attached policy brief.
https://www.prrac.org/expanding-federal-support-for-tenant-organizing-in-federally-assisted-housing-
and-the-housing-choice-voucher-program-february-2022/
d. minimal staff time involvement (mostly to facilitate communications, which is actually already
REQUIRED by HUD's RAB guidelines). Staff will be asked to send out notices of CAB meetings,
provide translation if needed, from time to time present to CAB on the proposed Admin Plan changes
or parts of the Admin Plan – by CAB invitation only.
Item 7.A 09/13/22
10 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
2
e. MOU - Memorandum of Understanding between SMHA and CAB will serve as a document that
spells out each party's responsibilities and duties. This was recommended by two specialized
attorneys from PRRAC and NHLP. MOUs are very common in federally subsidized tenant
participation.
I urge the SMHAB to support the Housing Commission recommendations and to direct staff to use
Housing Commission recommendations as guidance for facilitating the formation of an autonomous
CAB, including a direction for the staff to immediately notice the very first formal meeting of the Santa
Monica CAB.
A notice of such a meeting should go out to all 1,677 voucher households by snail mail and by email if
the family provided an email address.
At this meeting CAB will discuss more details on how they want to organize themselves (with Housing
Commission subcommittee being available to CAB during this meeting as a resource, and reps from
PRRAC, NHLP and LAFLA SM – also as a resource only). CAB will then start working on a proposed
MOU to be presented to SMHAB at a later date to formalize and codify the CAB.
Participants of the SMHA-administered federally funded housing program have been waiting for this
for DECADES, during which time the Santa Monica Housing Commission was violating federal
regulations mandating at the very least a RAB.
Regards,
Olga Zurawska
Item 7.A 09/13/22
11 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Theresa Marasco <theresa.marasco@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 12:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan;
Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; David White
Subject:Public Input - 9/13/2022 City Council Agenda Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Date: September 13, 2022
Subject: City of Santa Monica City Council Meeting September 13, 2022
Re: Public Comment - Agenda Item 7. STUDY SESSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
A.Section 8 Resident Advisory Board Approaches
Dear Santa Monica Housing Authority Board; and Santa Monica Housing Authority Executive Director, David
White:
First, I want to be clear that even though I am the Vice Chair of the Housing Commission, I am commenting as
a person of the public, but more importantly, I am commenting as an actual RAB member and someone who
has been a Housing Choice Voucher holder for more than 27 years.
I could go into great detail about the fact that the City of Santa Monica’s Housing Authority has not taken steps
to ensure that there is an active, engaged, robust, well-informed Resident Advisory Board, but I and many
others have done that over and over for the last 5 years only to be ignored. Real simple, there has NEVER
been a real Resident Advisory Board in the City of Santa Monica.
Regardless of the justifications and misleading statements in the “staff report,” the clients of the Santa Monica
Housing Authority have never had a real opportunity to meet and organize to respond collectively regarding the
Annual and Administrative Plans. The voices of over 1,600 voucher holders in the city have NEVER been
allowed to be heard. For over 22 years, the City of Santa Monica has been out of compliance with HUD’s
federal mandate to provide us with the resources we need to be active and engaged such as a place to meet,
a Zoom account to hold meetings in a hybrid setting, a website to provide information to the clients of the
SMHA and have refused to allow us to choose our own leadership.
I respectfully request that the SMHAB vote to immediately create a CAB or Client Advisory Board to include all
clients of the SMHA asap.
I am now requesting that the SMHAB do the following:
1. Adopt the recommendations of the Housing Commission that were voted on and approved by all
present Housing Commissioners and the 66 people who attended the September 1, 2022, Housing
Commission meeting
2. Immediately schedule 1st CAB meeting for 4-6 weeks from now
3. Mail meeting notice to all 1600+ HA clients, with translations (Housing Commission CAB Subcommittee
can write the letter)
4. Take Housing Commission recommendations as direction for how to proceed, beginning with a meeting
and letters to go out to all 1600 + SMHA clients
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Item 7.A 09/13/22
12 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
2
To help protect yMicrosoft Office pautomatic downlopicture from the
Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Item 7.A 09/13/22
13 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
Expanding Federal Support for Tenant Organizing in Federally
Assisted Housing and the Housing Choice Voucher Program
February 2022
The federal government, through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
provides legal protection and financial support for tenant organizing in several of HUD’s housing programs. Unfortunately, the housing choice voucher (HCV) program lacks the same organizing protections, creating uneven tenant protections throughout HUD’s housing programs. The right to organize has long been viewed as a key component of successful HUD housing programs. HUD directs Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) and private owners to support tenant organizing by
acknowledging tenant organizations, responding to their advocacy efforts, and, in some cases, provide funding. HUD’s regulations also protect tenants in HUD assisted multi-family housing against retaliatory evictions for organizing.1
Voucher participants should have a right to organize, just as HUD has provided in the public
housing and project-based rental assistance housing programs. HUD should promulgate tenant organizing regulations for the HCV program that allow for the greatest flexibility and have the lowest barriers to organizing. Additionally, HUD should fund voucher tenant organizing activities, as it has done for public housing tenants, but in a more consistent and meaningful way.
Federal Protections for Tenant Organizing – Public Housing
Public housing tenants have a right to organize under 24 CFR § 964.11.2 This regulation
establishes that any Public Housing Authority (PHA) that has a Public Housing Annual
Contributions Contract (ACC) must recognize tenants’ right to organize, elect a resident council representing their interests, and have that resident council recognized by the PHA.3 The regulation encourages PHAs to collaborate with the elected residents to improve the community overall. Under 24 CFR pt. 964, resident councils must be structured according to the statute for the
organization to be considered legitimate. Members must be elected, and the council must create
and adopt some sort of written procedures (like bylaws or a constitution) for governance.4 Resident councils can be comprised of members from one community, meaning multiple resident councils can exist within a PHA. These councils can represent a property or be city-wide.5
1 Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., Revision of Tenant Participation Requirements in Accordance with 24 CFR Part 245 at 5-8 (Mar. 31, 2016), https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/16-05HSGN.PDF.
2 24 CFR § 964.11. 3 24 CFR § 964.11. 24 CFR § 964.3 (a). 4 24 CFR § 964.115. 5 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing &
Community Development Programs, 2-50.
Item 7.A 09/13/22
14 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
Federal Protection for Tenant Organizing – HUD Assisted Multi-Family Housing
HUD regulations convey the right to organize to tenants in properties that participate in HUD’s
multi-family housing Project-based Rental Assistance (PBRA) programs.6 These programs include Project-based Section 8 Rental Assistance, Section 202, Section 811, and properties with specific
HUD-held and HUD-insured mortgages.7 24 CFR § 245.100 gives tenants in qualifying properties
the right to “establish and operate a tenant organization.”8 These organizations are to be created and led by tenants to address community development concerns, issues regarding the building or its units, and the “terms and conditions of their tenancy.”9 Property owners and property managers are to “recognize…and give reasonable consideration to concerns raised by legitimate tenant
organizations.”10
HUD regulation requires owners and managers to make reasonable efforts to accommodate tenants’ requests for accessible meeting spaces within the property for organizing activities or organizational operations. Property owners may charge tenants “reasonable, customary and usual”
fees for the use of meeting spaces on the property.11
24 CFR pt. 245 also provides protection for the organizing activities of non-resident organizers working with tenants.12 Under 24 CFR § 245.100 tenants in HUD assisted multi-family housing cannot be evicted for organizing. The regulation also explicitly delineates several organizing
activities property owners and managers must allow tenants to partake in without prior
permission.13 Federal Protection for Tenant Organizing – Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD)
Tenants in public housing properties that undergo RAD conversion retain the right to organize regardless of whether their development is converted to Section 8 Project-Based Voucher property or to Section 8 Project-based Rental Assistance property.14 It should be noted that resident organizing at properties converted to Section 8 Project-based Rental Assistance are subject to the
6 24 CFR § 245.10 states the right to organize is applicable to tenants living in: multi-family housing projects subject to a HUD insured or held mortgage under the National Housing Act; formerly HUD-owned projects; state or local housing finance agency projects; projects receiving project-based assistance under section 8 of the US Housing Act of 1937, but not when PHAs administer the project-based assistance; projects receiving enhanced vouchers under the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990, the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987, or the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997; projects receiving assistance under Section 202 Direct Loan or Supportive Housing for the Elderly programs; projects receiving assistance under the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program. 7 Jessie Cassella, Understanding Project-Based Rental Assistance (Mar. 22, 2018), https://www.nhlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Saving-HUD-Homes-2-FINAL.pdf.
8 24 CFR 245.100. 9 Id. 10 24 CFR § 245.105. 24 CFR § 245.110 defines a “legitimate tenant organization” as an organization that has been “established by the tenants of a multifamily housing project covered under § 245.10 for the purpose described in § 245.100, and meets regularly, operates democratically, is representative of all residents in the development, and is completely independent of owners, management, and their representatives.”
11 24 CFR § 245.120 (c). 12 24 CFR § 245.120. 13 24 CFR § 245.115. 14 https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/TENANTORGANIZINGAFTERRAD.PDF; Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., Rental Assistance Demonstration – Final Implementation, Revision 4 at 129-34 (Sept. 5, 2019),
Item 7.A 09/13/22
15 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
requirements in 24 CFR pt. 245 rather than those of part 964 – subjecting those tenants to the same right to organize regulations as tenants in HUD-assisted multi-family housing.15
Funding for Tenant Organizing Through the ACC with HUD, PHAs are provided with funds to support public housing tenant participation activities. HUD gives PHAs $25 per unit each year via the Operating Fund Grant.16
This $25 allotment is to be used by PHAs to fund tenant participation activities, and at minimum,
$15 of the $25 allocation must be used by resident councils for the support of training and organizing efforts.17 The $25 allotment has not increased since it was originally authorized and due in part to inflation, is generally too low to cover the cost of tenant participation activities.18
When there is no resident council, PHAs are encouraged to use their portion of the funding to encourage tenant participation activities, including training and capacity-building for residents to form a resident council.19 HUD allows PHAs to utilize a portion of that $15 to fund stipends for resident council officers serving as volunteers in their developments. These stipends are capped at
$200 per month, per officer.20 PHAs are allowed to keep $10 of the $25 allotment to allowable
expenditures, which includes a broad range of activities regarding tenant participation. These activities include community elections, printing, and meeting space rentals.21 Public housing converted under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD), whether converted
to PBV or PBRA, retain the $25 per unit, per year allocation for tenant participation activities.
Resident organizations in RAD conversions must still receive at least $15 per unit, per year for tenant organizing activities.22 Currently, there is no regulatory requirement for HUD to provide funding to PBRA tenants for
organizing activities. Section 514 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability
Act of 1997 (MAHRAA) authorizes HUD to spend up to $10 million annually from the Project Based Section 8 account, for tenant organizing, training and capacity-building.23 However, since 2001, HUD has committed approximately 7% of the available funding.24
https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Housing/documents/H-2019-09-PIH-2019-23_RAD_Notice%20Rev4_20190905.pdf.
15 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-52. 16 24 CFR § 964.150; Notice PIH 2021- 16 (HA). 17 Id. 18 Josh Cohen, HUD Has Money for Tenant Organizing. Why Isn't the Agency Spending It? Shelterforce (2021), https://shelterforce.org/2021/03/19/hud-has-money-for-tenant-organizing-why-isnt-the-agency-spending-it/
19 24 CFR § 964.150 (a). See National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-50. See also Notice PIH 2021- 16 (HA). Resident participation activities are not limited to organizing, however in this Notice organizing activities are explicitly mentioned by HUD as examples of appropriate ways to spend the allotted funds. 20 24 CFR § 964.150 (b). 21 Notice PIH 2021- 16 (HA).
22 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-52. 23 42 USC § 1437f note. 24 The National Alliance of HUD Tenants estimates that HUD has committed only $13 million out of the $190 million that could have been used for this purpose.
Item 7.A 09/13/22
16 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
Tenant Organizing in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) tenants are typically scattered across a PHA’s service area, so tenants face additional barriers to their organizing efforts. Also, HUD’s regulations do not include the same legal protections for HCV tenants interested in organizing, nor does HUD provide funding for HCV tenants to organize. As with all voucher and public housing tenants, HCV tenants
may participate in Resident Advisory Boards or become involved in the PHA Plan process.25 For
broader organizing efforts, however, HCV tenants must turn to tenant organizing groups that operate more broadly within the community.
Recommendations (in brief)
The right to organize is vital and empowers tenants in federally assisted housing. 26 In order to move in the direction of progress on this issue, HUD should consider:
• Increasing the amount of funding per year, per unit for tenant participation activities across
all of its housing programs;
• Creating right to organize protections for HCV tenants;
• Providing funds for organizing activities amongst HCV tenants;
• Funding, separately from the money allocated to fund resident organizing activities, for resident capacity building programs throughout the country in all of its housing programs;
• Creating opportunities for dialogue and centering experiences of tenants when considering
how to improve the agency’s federal housing programs.
Principles for a Right to Organize for Housing Choice Voucher Tenants Below is a brief initial outline of principles HUD should consider when developing organizing
protections in the HCV program. The National Housing Law Project (NHLP) and Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) will continue to engage our partners about the best practices for organizing Voucher participants and will update this proposal regularly. NHLP and PRRAC are committed to continuing the conversation about the importance of HUD-assisted participants having the right to organize and look forward to working with Voucher participants,
organizers, and HUD on this issue.
• A Voucher tenant organization should be defined similarly to 24 CFR § 245.110—an organization that meets regularly, operates democratically, is inclusive of the local
voucher participants, and is independent from the PHA and owners (POAs).
o HUD’s regulation must include an explicit protection against retaliation of PHA or owner (POA) interference.
A rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken within 6 months of the tenant’s participation in organizing activities is an act of retaliation.
25 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing &
Community Development Programs, 2-52. 26 The need for federal regulation around the right to organize and funding for organizing activities has been recognized by Congress. Our recommendations align with those delineated in the Tenant Empowerment Act, introduced by Reps. Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, and Maxine Waters. See “Tenant Empowerment Act of 2020” https://files.constantcontact.com/eee0e428701/f80f47a2-d611-4f27-8451-81cb2ac588ee.pdf
Item 7.A 09/13/22
17 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
o All protections extended to Voucher tenant organizations should also be extended to any organizing committee(s).
o Individual tenants should be protected from any retaliation due to their
participation in the tenant organization and, or participation in organizing activities. o There should be an enforcement process for tenants and, or tenant organizations to submit allegations of interference or retaliation.
HUD must prioritize enforcement of all tenant organizing regulations and
respond swiftly to allegations of POA retaliation and interference.
HUD has a comprehensive enforcement process for the project-based rental assistance program that could be used as a model. See HUD H 2016-05.
HUD’s regulation must include an explicit protection against retaliation of
PHA or owner (POA) interference.
• A rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken within 6 months of the tenant’s participation in organizing activities is an act of retaliation.
o HUD should fund, separately from the money allocated to fund tenant organizing activities, tenant capacity building programs throughout the country.
PHAs should invite tenant serving community organizations to participate in the HCV orientation meetings to provide information about tenant organizing.
• Possible Role of Voucher Tenant Organizations o Represents voucher participants in making demands to the PHA regarding the operation and policies of the local Voucher program, such as but not limited to,
commenting on PHA plans and policies, Voucher utilization, payment standards, problem landlords, list of available units, or housing search assistance; o Appoint HCV household member(s) to serve on the PHA board in addition to existing tenant directors;27 o Appoint representative(s) to serve on the Resident Advisory Boards (RAB);
o Encourage Voucher participants to join the HCV organization, including during the initial Voucher briefings and reaching out to persons on the waitlist;
HUD should mandate PHAs to provide notice to HCV tenants of the right to organize annually and amend the HCV tenancy addendum to include the right to organize.
PHAs should also include information about the right to organize to participating and potential participate landlords; the owner’s obligation to not retaliate or interfere with the right to organize must be memorialized in HUD’s HCV HAP form. o Educate tenants on issues and/or operations that affect tenant and their living
environment;
o Engaging in capacity building activities, specifically developing capacity about the Voucher program; o Formulate responses to changes in the operation and policies for the Voucher program, and;
27 Where the state law requires an executive to appoint board members, the HCV tenant group should have the right to recommend to the appointing official a candidate to serve in the position.
Item 7.A 09/13/22
18 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)
o Organizing and advocating for federal, state and local housing policies and tenant protections, including but not limited to, source of income discrimination protections.
• Funding
o Voucher tenant organizing should be funded in a meaningful and consistent manner.28 Each year, per unit, HUD should make available funds for independent Housing Choice Voucher tenant organizations organized at the local, regional, or state level. Annually, the amount received per unit should incrementally increase.
If HUD decides to continue the practice of splitting the funding between the PHA and the resident groups, the majority of the money should go to the Voucher tenant organization(s). o Organizing groups’ receipt of funding should not be contingent upon a Memorandum of Understanding or PHAs’ approval of the use of the funds.
o Voucher tenant organizations should not be required to request the funding from the PHA and the funding should be automatically provided to the Voucher tenant organizing group. o Voucher tenant organizations should have the discretion to pay their officers and members stipend and to hire paid organizers.
• Structure of Organization o The regulations should not proscribe a specific organizational structure or mandate the organization have a specific number of officers. Being proscriptive in
this manner may disqualify otherwise eligible groups because the group is just getting started, there are limited number of members who can serve as an officer, etc. o Voucher tenant organizations should be permitted to form partnerships with other voucher tenant organizations, community organizations, organizers, and housing
advocates to organize on issues important to Voucher participants.
o All persons listed on leases should be able to participate in the tenant organization and organizing activities. o Each organization should have the ability to decide who is eligible to vote.
28 If the $25 per unit per year funding for tenant participation had kept up with inflation, PHAs would receive $37.44 per unit per year for tenant participation activities. See Interim Instructions on Distribution and Use of Operating Subsidy Funds Received for Resident Participation Activities, Notice PIH 2001-03 (Jan. 18, 2001); Value of 2001 US Dollars Today, INFLATIONTOOL (Mar. 8, 2021, 1:10 PM), https://www.inflationtool.com/us-dollar/2001-to-present-value?amount=25.
Item 7.A 09/13/22
19 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)